Central to the philosophy of determinate sentencing is the declaration that sentencing should be fair. The idea is that legislative mandates will eliminate the impact of socioeconomic differences among offenders by ensuring that punishment is proportionate to the offense and that it still allows the court to consider the criminal history of offenders. The first part of this equation—that punishment be based on the seriousness of the crime—does address concern for public safety and is consistent with public-supported ideas that serious crimes can be avoided in the future with harsher sentences. However, the secondary mandate—requiring a judge to add on time for an individual’s second or third conviction—is often viewed as unjust. Referring back to our opening story, three-strike laws can result in life imprisonment for individuals who commit theft or other low-level offenses. Additionally, from a pragmatic point of view, the more offenders who enter the prison system, the more economic resources are needed to support increased prison populations.
Discuss your views on the requirement to provide consistency in sentencing versus financial concerns that stem from prison crowding during less prosperous times.